>Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> If we had an independent way to have the function run as a
> specific user, where that user DIDN'T own the function, I think
> Kevin's use case would be satisfied.
I agree. I'm not sure quite what that would look like, but maybe
SECURITY ROLE <rolename> or some such could be an alternative to
SECURITY INVOKER and SECURITY DEFINER. (I haven't looked to see
what the standard has here.)
-Kevin